Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act renders a **confession irrelevan…

Question

Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act renders a **confession irrelevant** if it is caused by inducement, threat, or promise. According to the lesson, all SIX of the following facts must be established to attract this prohibition. Which of the listed facts is NOT required?

Accepted Answer

B. {'text': 'That the confession has been corroborated by independent eye-witnesses produced by the defence', 'label': 'B'}

1. Section 24 lists **six facts** to attract the bar, as reproduced in Lesson 11:
   (i) the statement is a confession;
   (ii) it was made by an accused person;
   (iii) it was made **to a person in authority**;
   (iv) it was **obtained by reason of any inducement, threat or promise** proceeding from such a person;
   (v) such inducement, threat or promise has **reference to the charge**; and
   (vi) it must be sufficient to give the accused reasonable grounds for supposing a temporal advantage or evil avoidance.
2. **Independent eyewitness corroboration is NOT a section 24 requirement**.
3. Only option (D) is outside the section.
_Source: ICSI CS Executive Paper 1 — Jurisprudence, Interpretation & General Laws, Lesson 11 (Indian Evidence Act, 1872), pp. 251-272._

Answer

{'text': 'That the statement in question is a confession made by an accused person', 'label': 'A'}

Answer

{'text': 'That the inducement, threat, or promise must have reference to the charge against the accused person', 'label': 'C'}

Answer

{'text': 'That the confession has been made to a person in authority', 'label': 'D'}